Dear Editor,
I am writing with reference to an erroneous article published in the Kaieteur News edition of May 12th, 2023, with the caption “Patterson flays derelict procurement commission”. The article cited a letter in which the Alliance for Chance (AFC) Member of Parliament, David Patterson, sought to propagate a series of tenuous allegations directed at the Public Procurement Commission (PPC).
This behavior by the AFC Parliamentarian is not surprising and it has been an aggressively consistent personal campaign by the subject matter Parliamentarian for quite some time now. The PPC had initially chosen to ignore him for the reasons which I am about to disclose. In fact, it was the undersigned Commissioner who vehemently argued at one of the PPC’s statutory meetings that the PPC should not entertain him based on the following arguments:
1. David Patterson obviously has a personal agenda, and he is on a personal mission to avenge himself since he was the subject of investigation by the former Commission into the infamous Demerara Harbour Bridge feasibility study. That investigation found that there were blatant breaches and disregard for the Procurement Law and Regulations.
1. I had argued that his attack on certain Afro-Guyanese contractors in his letter of complaint for investigation is questionable. Why would he want to attack Afro Guyanese contractors when the incumbent government is working assiduously to ensure that more Afro-Guyanese contractors benefit from government contracts. Then, on the other hand, the same AFC complains bitterly that the government is discriminating against Afro-Guyanese, an unsubstantiated allegation by that political party.
1. I had also argued that the PPC as a Constitutional Body cannot subject itself to the directives of a politician, especially from one who has reasons to advance a personal vendetta against the Commission. The Commission is an independent and impartial body, and it is not subject to the directives of any politician. Furthermore, the PPC reports to the National Assembly, and it is through this medium, where he is a sitting Member of Parliament, he will be afforded the opportunity to scrutinize the work of the Commission.
Moreover, the Parliamentarian is highly misguided to take it upon himself to decide conveniently and subjectively which of the many functions of the PPC is considered most important. I do not believe that the PPC is in any position to treat any of its functions as the single “most important function”. Because all of the PPC’s functions as set out in the Constitution are of equal importance.
The PPC has an approved budget for the fiscal year which is aligned with a strategic workplan for the period. The development of this workplan was guided by the functions of the PPC. Therefore, it is this workplan that ought to be the principal guiding pillar of the work of the PPC and not the whimsical dictates of an aggrieved politician.
Further, it is worth mentioning that the PPC found itself in a constitutional quagmire engineered by the very APNU+AFC in their transparent and desperate attempt to remain in power following the March 2020 Regional and General Elections―through unlawful means. Recall that the election results was protracted for five painfully long months.
This, coupled with the fact that the APNU+AFC government remained in office unconstitutionally for more than one year following the successful passage of the December 2018 “No Confidence Motion (NCM)”, exacerbated the dilemma. As a result, the life of the PPC had expired and was reconstituted some two years later. When the Commissioners were sworn in on July 2022, the PPC was virtually incapacitated from hitting the ground running as it had to repeat the process of restaffing and re-operationalizing the Secretariat of the Commission. This process alone lasted for about six months.
Of note, the previous commission, which was controlled by the APNU+AFC Commissioners, had perpetrated several excesses and breaches of the relevant laws in the management of the Commission such as the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act (FMAA) as evidenced in the Auditor General’s Report. The Commission was poorly staffed with more than five administrative assistants and with a lesser number of technical staff. In fact, the previous Commission had no legal department or any attorney other than the former Chairperson.
The current commission having reviewed the organizational structure in line with the functions of the Commission, the PPC sought to strengthen the technical capacity of the Secretariat, by removing all of the redundant administrative assistant positions and created for the first time a legal department. The reason for this was based on the fact that most of the work of the Commission surrounding its core functions as per the Constitution, are in relation to ensuring compliance with the procurement laws and regulations. So, the purpose of creating the legal department was aimed at strengthening the work of the Commission in this respect.
With regard to the issues proliferated by the subject matter Parliamentarian, those matters raised a number of constitutional questions wherein there is no established precedent that the Commission could rely on for guidance. There are constitutional questions surrounding the PPC’s function to conduct investigation since there is no enabling legislation empowering the PPC to do so. Consequently, if it is found that in the absence of the requisite enabling legislation to carry out this particular function, then it becomes a matter for the legislator, which the subject matter Parliamentarian happens to be a member of.
The foregoing situation has necessitated the outsourcing of external legal advice since the in-house legal department does not have the requisite specialized expertise and experience in constitutional law. Thus, the outsourcing of external legal advice of this nature is well in order. Noteworthily, one of the functions of the PPC is to make recommendations in respect of the legislative framework central to public procurement, and it is for this reason, importantly, that the external specialized legal advice being sought will become useful.
Notwithstanding, it is understandable why an aggrieved and vengeful politician will only single out a single function of the PPC out of thirteen functions in accordance with the Constitution. However, it is my considered view that the PPC should not be engaged in a political charade with politicians. Rather, the PPC needs to remain steadfast and focused in executing its mandate diligently. In so doing, the PPC ought not to subject itself to undue political influence.
Yours sincerely,
Joel Bhagwandin
Commissioner, PPC
